![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Смотрел сегодня дебаты МакКейна с Обамой. Ниже транскрипт с моими замечаниями (длинный, в 3 частях, уж не обессудьте). А вообще по ведению - общий уровень у них был примерно одинаковый, никто сильно не выделялся. Мне показалось, что Обама говорил чуть менее гладко - больше "эээ" и т.п. но может он мне просто меньше нравится.
МакКейн называл Обаму "сенатор Обама", а тот его - "Джон" (разница поколений?).
Теперь к делу. Транскрипт, конечно, совсем не дословный (дословные скоро наверняка вывесят), и сокращенный. Мои комментарии - курсивом.
Question: what is your financial plan?
O: oversight, no golden parachutes, help homeowners. Crisis caused by Bush failed policies, middle class getting "fair share".
M: common bipartisan solution, transparency, loans not gifts. This is the end of the beginning. Dependency on foreign oil is a problem.
(more general smooth words than a plan... )
Question: your opinion on plan being proposed?
O: didn't see the plan (too busy campaigning, I presume), I warned 2 years ago (did you?), more regulation needed (of course, more regulation always helps)
M: warned too, accountability is needed
M: republicans changed to big govt supporters (hear, hear), earmarks are gateway drug. Example: 3mln to study bear DNA. I'll veto earmarks. 935mln earmarks done by Obama
O: M is right, earmarks are abused, but I didn't do it (sure you didn't, those other bad guys did!)! I suspended use of earmarks. M proposes 300bn tax cuts, earmarks are only 18bn. I will do tax cut for 95% people.
M: O suspended earmarks only when running for president. Earmarks tripled last years, it corrupts. O proposes 800bn new spending, I want to cut it.
O: No tax cuts for outsourcers, healthcare for everyone.
M: US has 2nd highest business tax (35%, Ireland has 11%), I want to cut it. The problem is not only pork but it's systematic, 935mln on Obama again. I'll double tax credit for children. What's O's definition of rich?
O: 95% will get tax cut, <250K no tax increase. Business taxes are high on paper, but too many loopholes (so more regulation is good or?)
M: We had energy bill with all kinds of tax breaks for oil companies, I was against, O was for it. Who fought against spending? I propose 2 tax brackets, generous dividends. O voted for tax increase for people earning as much as 42K!
O: Not true! M already gives oils 4bn (it sounds like being oil company is a crime nowdays. Maybe we should just shoot them and be done with it?) M opposed the bill that stripped oil benefits.
Question: what plans would you give up for financial rescue measures?
O: something. Have to have: energy independence (10 years, inc. producion at home, alternative), healthcare, avg decuctible +30%, many bancrupcies over healtcare, invest in education & technology, infrastructure: rebuild roads, bridges, electricity grid. (you were asked what you will give up, and you answered what you want to spend on. Typical democratic answer on spending cuts question - "here's where we need more spending").
M: Cut spending. O is most liberal senator. No etanol subsidies. No "cost+" in defense contracts. Defense spending is important, but needs to be controlled and I know how to, I saved 6.8bn on Boeing contract.
Question: so, no major changes?
O: something will be delayed. Energy independence. Individual components may be not done. 15bn subsidy to private insurers under Medicare. I proposed "Google for government" - list every spending dollar and who is promoting. (this is actually not a bad idea, IMHO, though in fact the data may be already public, only distributed)
Question: so, how is financial situation going to affect your presidency?
M: spending freeze on all but defence, veterans & entitlements. (that's concrete proposal, about time!)
O: freeze is hatchet instead of scalpel. 10bn / month in Iraq - bring it to close (hey man, you want more troups in Afghanistan anyway, how's Iraq gonna help?)
M: We give 700bn/year to countries that don't like us, have to have alternative energy but also nuclear and offshore drilling. O opposes processing & storing spent nuclear fuel. We can create 700K jobs by 45 new nuke plants.
acknowledge that crisis would affect the way you rule the country?
O: gonna make tough decisions, have to know priorities, spend 300bn on tax cuts that people don't need and don't ask (names, addresses of people who would refuse a tax cut? Is it Joe Biden?) and leaving out healthcare - bad. (again, answer to cuts question - more spending)
M: no nationalized healthcare, O would do that. Cut spending. O proposes 800bn new spending. We should take care of veterans. Healthy economy with low taxes is best, spending restraint in vital. We owe China 500bn. I fought spending all the time and have plans.
O: (calls M Jim) Bush spends big and you voted for his budgets. (that's not a good move, you just helped him to say the following line)
M: I'm no Miss Congeniality, I have opposed Bush on spending, torture, Iraq war, etc. I'm maverick and my VP too.
Questions: what are the lessons of Iraq?
M: can't have failed strategy (no shit? that's weak) In 2003 I said we need to change strategy, more troops and succeeded. We will come home with victory & honor. Iraq will be stable ally. Victory and not defeat. (ok, that's better)
O: I opposed this war, it was risky. We haven't finished with Afghanistan, it will be distraction. (yeah, and Saddam sponsoring terrorists wouldn't distract anyone - who cares) I was right, we spent 600bn, lost 4K lives, 30K wounded, AlQaeda is stronger that anytime since 2001 (that's crap, how they are stronger?) We borrow to finance basic functions of our govt (if by basic functions you mean 700bn bailouts, sure). We should not hesitate to use force, but use it wise. (no shit? I though we should use it stupidly. Hot air overload).
M: next president has to decide when and how we leave, not should we have started it. O opposed surge, said it would increase violence and doomed to failure, now says it exceedes expectations, but still says would oppose it.m Never went to Iraq or met Petreus. O is on subcommitee overseeing NATO in Afghanistan, never had a hearing. (he was busy being the One)
O: Joe Biden is my VP, he explains my subcomitee doesn't take real decisions (so you are not doing shi tabout the issue you think is more important than Iraq and feel good, right?) , the commitee does. M is right violence is reduced, good job for army & Petreus. It was damage control for past mismanagement, war not started in 2007 but 2003. (but you still opposed the surge, right?) You said it will be easy, said we knew where WMD and we will be greeted as liberators - wrong (did McCain say he knew where WMD were? And US forces were greeted, but not by everybody). No violence between shiite & sunni - wrong. Judgement is important (and your judgement was to pull out before surge - how about that?).
M: O doesn't understand tactic vs strategy. I talked 2yrs ago to troops on reenlistment ceremony in Iraq they said "let us win". They are winning, O refuses to acknowledge that (O: not true) (well, he does acknowledge it now, he just didn't think it was possible). Peace comes to Iraq and it's strategic. We'll do the same in Afghanistan. O voted to cut funding to troops.
O: M opposed funding with timetable, I opposed funding without. It was about timetable, not funding. (ok, maybe, but your timetables still sucked, right?) Afganistan is worse, we need more troops here. M said we've been successful in Afghanistan. It started there, it needs to end there (what started there, terrorism? you wish!). We should end it repsonsibly, in phases, in 16 month reduce troops, bolster Afganistan and kill Bin-Laden and crush AQ. We don't have enough troops. (why so much talk killing BinLaden? OK, he's criminal and terrorist and all that, but do you really think with his death all the Islamis terror would disappear as fog under the mornign sun? Killing him is OK, but it shouldn't be more important than anti-terror strategy)
M: Mullen says O's plan dangerous, and so does Petreus (O: not true). Both say Iraq is central battleground. O original plan was to withdraw before surge. O surprised by surge success, but I am not. But O can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory if he becomes president.
продолжение следует.
МакКейн называл Обаму "сенатор Обама", а тот его - "Джон" (разница поколений?).
Теперь к делу. Транскрипт, конечно, совсем не дословный (дословные скоро наверняка вывесят), и сокращенный. Мои комментарии - курсивом.
Question: what is your financial plan?
O: oversight, no golden parachutes, help homeowners. Crisis caused by Bush failed policies, middle class getting "fair share".
M: common bipartisan solution, transparency, loans not gifts. This is the end of the beginning. Dependency on foreign oil is a problem.
(more general smooth words than a plan... )
Question: your opinion on plan being proposed?
O: didn't see the plan (too busy campaigning, I presume), I warned 2 years ago (did you?), more regulation needed (of course, more regulation always helps)
M: warned too, accountability is needed
M: republicans changed to big govt supporters (hear, hear), earmarks are gateway drug. Example: 3mln to study bear DNA. I'll veto earmarks. 935mln earmarks done by Obama
O: M is right, earmarks are abused, but I didn't do it (sure you didn't, those other bad guys did!)! I suspended use of earmarks. M proposes 300bn tax cuts, earmarks are only 18bn. I will do tax cut for 95% people.
M: O suspended earmarks only when running for president. Earmarks tripled last years, it corrupts. O proposes 800bn new spending, I want to cut it.
O: No tax cuts for outsourcers, healthcare for everyone.
M: US has 2nd highest business tax (35%, Ireland has 11%), I want to cut it. The problem is not only pork but it's systematic, 935mln on Obama again. I'll double tax credit for children. What's O's definition of rich?
O: 95% will get tax cut, <250K no tax increase. Business taxes are high on paper, but too many loopholes (so more regulation is good or?)
M: We had energy bill with all kinds of tax breaks for oil companies, I was against, O was for it. Who fought against spending? I propose 2 tax brackets, generous dividends. O voted for tax increase for people earning as much as 42K!
O: Not true! M already gives oils 4bn (it sounds like being oil company is a crime nowdays. Maybe we should just shoot them and be done with it?) M opposed the bill that stripped oil benefits.
Question: what plans would you give up for financial rescue measures?
O: something. Have to have: energy independence (10 years, inc. producion at home, alternative), healthcare, avg decuctible +30%, many bancrupcies over healtcare, invest in education & technology, infrastructure: rebuild roads, bridges, electricity grid. (you were asked what you will give up, and you answered what you want to spend on. Typical democratic answer on spending cuts question - "here's where we need more spending").
M: Cut spending. O is most liberal senator. No etanol subsidies. No "cost+" in defense contracts. Defense spending is important, but needs to be controlled and I know how to, I saved 6.8bn on Boeing contract.
Question: so, no major changes?
O: something will be delayed. Energy independence. Individual components may be not done. 15bn subsidy to private insurers under Medicare. I proposed "Google for government" - list every spending dollar and who is promoting. (this is actually not a bad idea, IMHO, though in fact the data may be already public, only distributed)
Question: so, how is financial situation going to affect your presidency?
M: spending freeze on all but defence, veterans & entitlements. (that's concrete proposal, about time!)
O: freeze is hatchet instead of scalpel. 10bn / month in Iraq - bring it to close (hey man, you want more troups in Afghanistan anyway, how's Iraq gonna help?)
M: We give 700bn/year to countries that don't like us, have to have alternative energy but also nuclear and offshore drilling. O opposes processing & storing spent nuclear fuel. We can create 700K jobs by 45 new nuke plants.
acknowledge that crisis would affect the way you rule the country?
O: gonna make tough decisions, have to know priorities, spend 300bn on tax cuts that people don't need and don't ask (names, addresses of people who would refuse a tax cut? Is it Joe Biden?) and leaving out healthcare - bad. (again, answer to cuts question - more spending)
M: no nationalized healthcare, O would do that. Cut spending. O proposes 800bn new spending. We should take care of veterans. Healthy economy with low taxes is best, spending restraint in vital. We owe China 500bn. I fought spending all the time and have plans.
O: (calls M Jim) Bush spends big and you voted for his budgets. (that's not a good move, you just helped him to say the following line)
M: I'm no Miss Congeniality, I have opposed Bush on spending, torture, Iraq war, etc. I'm maverick and my VP too.
Questions: what are the lessons of Iraq?
M: can't have failed strategy (no shit? that's weak) In 2003 I said we need to change strategy, more troops and succeeded. We will come home with victory & honor. Iraq will be stable ally. Victory and not defeat. (ok, that's better)
O: I opposed this war, it was risky. We haven't finished with Afghanistan, it will be distraction. (yeah, and Saddam sponsoring terrorists wouldn't distract anyone - who cares) I was right, we spent 600bn, lost 4K lives, 30K wounded, AlQaeda is stronger that anytime since 2001 (that's crap, how they are stronger?) We borrow to finance basic functions of our govt (if by basic functions you mean 700bn bailouts, sure). We should not hesitate to use force, but use it wise. (no shit? I though we should use it stupidly. Hot air overload).
M: next president has to decide when and how we leave, not should we have started it. O opposed surge, said it would increase violence and doomed to failure, now says it exceedes expectations, but still says would oppose it.m Never went to Iraq or met Petreus. O is on subcommitee overseeing NATO in Afghanistan, never had a hearing. (he was busy being the One)
O: Joe Biden is my VP, he explains my subcomitee doesn't take real decisions (so you are not doing shi tabout the issue you think is more important than Iraq and feel good, right?) , the commitee does. M is right violence is reduced, good job for army & Petreus. It was damage control for past mismanagement, war not started in 2007 but 2003. (but you still opposed the surge, right?) You said it will be easy, said we knew where WMD and we will be greeted as liberators - wrong (did McCain say he knew where WMD were? And US forces were greeted, but not by everybody). No violence between shiite & sunni - wrong. Judgement is important (and your judgement was to pull out before surge - how about that?).
M: O doesn't understand tactic vs strategy. I talked 2yrs ago to troops on reenlistment ceremony in Iraq they said "let us win". They are winning, O refuses to acknowledge that (O: not true) (well, he does acknowledge it now, he just didn't think it was possible). Peace comes to Iraq and it's strategic. We'll do the same in Afghanistan. O voted to cut funding to troops.
O: M opposed funding with timetable, I opposed funding without. It was about timetable, not funding. (ok, maybe, but your timetables still sucked, right?) Afganistan is worse, we need more troops here. M said we've been successful in Afghanistan. It started there, it needs to end there (what started there, terrorism? you wish!). We should end it repsonsibly, in phases, in 16 month reduce troops, bolster Afganistan and kill Bin-Laden and crush AQ. We don't have enough troops. (why so much talk killing BinLaden? OK, he's criminal and terrorist and all that, but do you really think with his death all the Islamis terror would disappear as fog under the mornign sun? Killing him is OK, but it shouldn't be more important than anti-terror strategy)
M: Mullen says O's plan dangerous, and so does Petreus (O: not true). Both say Iraq is central battleground. O original plan was to withdraw before surge. O surprised by surge success, but I am not. But O can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory if he becomes president.
продолжение следует.
no subject